9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Member For the Appellant Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT-DR For the Respondent None ORDER PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata s order dated 02.04.2019, passed in case No. 1274/CIT(A)-7/Circle-6(2)/Kol/15-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Case called twice. None appears at the assessee s behest. We accordingly dispose of this appeal ex parte after hearing the learned CIT-DR. 2. The Revenue s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant lis seeks to reverse the CIT(A) s appellate action deleting sec. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D disallowance of ₹1,56,07,230/- made in the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant that there was no exempt income earned during the year under consideration. The issue is well settled by various judicial forums that in the absence of any exempt income, there could not be any occasion for resorting to Rue 8D r.w. section 14A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del) held that _ No disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to shares bought for strategic purposes . Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Holcim India Private Ltd. held that Expenditure could not be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act in absence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. Both the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal found as a matter of fact that there was no exempt income for the operation of the relevant Rule. In the light of such concurrent findings and, in particular, the Department failing to demonstrate any error therein, no question of law arises in this matter. 4.1. Respectfully following the above binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in a similar case, I am of the considered view that since in the facts of the present case, none of the investments yielded dividend income during the year, the disallowance of ₹15,60,72,8301- made u/s 14A was unjustified. However, since the appellant had suo moto made a disallowance of ₹31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
